Why European Cities are Insanely Well Designed

Across the globe, there are more than 10,000 different cities. While Cities in the United States are dominated by cars, European Cities are the complete opposite. But why are US Cities so different, and why didn't they follow the European Blueprint for building a city. While American cities used the grid method to design and organize traffic, European Cities used the Radial method. This can be seen in a City such as Paris where the Radial design is used very often.

While across the Globe are known for having large populations, recent studies have found that people are preferring to live in an urban environment rather than a city. Throughout the next few decades, European Cities will be put to the test to see if their pedestrian oriented design will allow them to avoid a decline in population.

London and Paris are European Cities while New York and Los Angeles are American Cities. Across the globe there are more than 10,000 cities.

Thank you for watching and subscribe if you enjoyed the video!

#City #Paris #Design © 2023 Arkive Productions LLC

[ArkiveYT]

I understand there were a lot of mistakes with this video, and I apologize for that. The sources I used for this video had very inaccurate information and I am sorry for that. In the future, I will do a better job verifying the information various sources post online before using it in my videos.

[vcostaval]

The grid vs. radial planning comparison makes no sense. I mean, NY is used as an example in the video and it was designed as a grid way before cars were even invented. Barcelona on the other hand is also a grid throughout almost the whole city and is one of the most walkable cities in the world. The grid city in Europe actually goes back to the Roman Empire, way before US cities were a thing, as they built cities in a grid pattern similar to their military camps, but it was kinda lost during the middle ages and beyond.

In fact, usually the most walkable, vibrant and economically active neighborhoods in US cities are exactly where the grids are, as they commonly are the oldest parts of the cities, while the rest is suburbs (which is what should be pointed as why US cities are worst planned than european, not the grid steets).

Another thing to note is the US cities do not use the grid pattern anymore for over half a century, which means most of US urban areas came after when grid pattern was the norm.

I think if you want to understand where the urban planning in the US differs from Europe and how it impacts things like walkability etc, you should look at zoning and suburbia, as they are what forbids anything other than a single family homes in a cul de sac to be built in most of US cities, and this complete separation between residential and everything else, with the maze-like street patterns of cul de sacs, stroads and highways, is what kills US cities. In comparison, Europe sees mixed used and multi family homes, be it duplexes, triplexes or 4-6 story buildings, as something desirable, not to be avoided.

In the end, the older grid neighborhoods are actually where the US cities comes closer to what European cities are like, as they were built before all this zoning and suburbia nonsense

[GuidenYT]

The more I see how pedestrian friendly I see European cities are the more jealous I become.

[chaoticserpent]

1:52 "In cities such as Paris and Denmark" - Wow! Impressive research.

[miguesilva_o_tolo]

You basically stereotyped the Europeans with the French example. I'm from Portugal and our policies don't help farmers keeping their lands instead of selling it to huge developers. What happens here is just the opposite. This is just an example but shows how you have to be careful by stereotyping.

[ElsenyoPol]

Narrator: European cities did not use the grid plan

Me, a catalan: **laughs in Barcelona’s Ildefons Cerdà plan** (Literally the creator of the term “urbanism”)

(Also, WTF? The grid plan is an invention of the Roman Empire, any city founded by the romans two milena ago used the grid plan, and you can still see that in old city centers all across Southern Europe)

[Ulysses_S_Grant_]

-London wasn't planned (it's a mess of roads built by different people)
-Lots of European cities are grids, they're just designed well with grids
- that is no wear close to how you pronounce champs Elysées

[roadrage]

US cities were bulldozed for the car, not designed for the car. Even with the grid system you can easily make it work.
Just block of some roads, centre to suburbs make these pedestrian and cycle roads. Side streets closed for cars to, think like 5 to 10 side streets closed before hitting an intersection. Easy, you only need to want it.

[niclasd.]

The reason that European cities are better designed is not that they don't use the gridsystem. Reasons why Europe is better are:
-better infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians
-good public transit
-mixed Zoning
-Cities are much denser (less detached houses), unlike suburbs in America

It is also not true that European streets are often build with radial design. I'm European and I have rarely ever seen something like this.

[pimpnamedslickback]

NYCs grid was designed in 1811. Well over a century before cars

[jan-lukas]

"European cities had a different look at city planning" you missed one of the most important differences: most European cities old, and the older something gets, the less planned it is. When it's first built every city is kinda planned, but over the years so much has changed in European cities that I wouldn't call much of it planned anymore

[SotonyaAcckaya]

You should check your biases and consider that grid method is at least 4000 years older than cars . It was the way at least some ancient cities was built. Also there lots of European cities that are build by grid method at least in some part (like Vasilievsky island in St. Petersburg, that was like Russian Manhattan in 18 century (while other parts of the city was build radially). Even American grids was in place prior to cars adoption.
I mean why do you even want grids if you design with cars in mind? Too much intersections will slow down traffic compared with longer stretches of radial main streets. if anything, grid design was perfect for street cars and optimizing density.

[CK-wvgf]

Dude you limited your whole research to Paris. Paris is very different than most European cities and is far from organic in its design. Do proper research and don’t stereotype European cities as Paris. And NYC is among the most walkable cities in the US, so you’re actually weakening your argument quite a bit.

[es]

Gridded cities were not designed for cars - they were designed initially for horse and buggies but primarily for streetcars and efficient public transit networks. Cars didn’t exist when most gridded cities were planned in the 1800s, but you are correct that they were used to maximize space. Gridded cities are not bad, nor are they a death knell for sustainability or walkability. While they do lack a certain human scaled aspect, making these spaces livable comes down to encouraging granularity in the planning/construction of new buildings and ensuring that public transit and active transportation are given the lion’s share of street space.

[OldieBugger]

My hometown (Turku, Finland) is based on a grid. That's because the whole city burned down (except for the cathedral) in 1827. Then it was rebuilt on a grid for fire safety in mind. Not a north-south-east-west grid, of course. The grid is aligned on the river that flows through the town.

[JJ-siqh]

Grid plan was to make things easy to navigate. Boston is an example of a European style city and it is near impossible to navigate for non-residents

[cardenasr.]

I think you have a US-centered view as well as an anti-car bias, grids have been used in many regions of the world (Asia, Europe, Latin America) for centuries before cars even existed, and they aren't necessarily hostile to pedestrians. Most Mexican cities have a historic center based on a grid, and they are dense, bustling and very walkable parts of town, because when they were built everything had to be reachable by walking distance.

I think it has to do more with patterns of property and government intervention, as cities in the New World were built from scratch, with the convenience of simple plot structure in mind, because they needed to distribute land among settlers without complication. In cities founded by the Spaniards, it was a tradition to place a square in the center, surrounded by government and church buildings, in case they needed to defend the town they would summon all troops to the square (which was named plaza de armas, or square of arms). Another advantage is that the grid allowed for easy growth to every direction if the terrain allowed it.

In contrast, European cities were built in the middle ages, where central government authority was weaker or non-existent, so there was no predefined way to build a city, and towns then grew along the roads that led out of the city or near centers of resources "organically", hence the irregular layout.

[ijulesy]

Another awesome video! I love the utilisation of the satellite imagery from Google maps/Earth!

[liamlandehag]

Controvercy though but i think the grid system and straight roads are a good way to plan a city

[TS-ibll]

00:07
That is incorrect. Even cities like New York were not built car-centric. They were later rebuilt for cars. (60s - apparently today because highways continue to get wider)